IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i4d10.1007_s40271-021-00555-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges in Using Recommended Quality of Life Measures to Assess Fluctuating Health: A Think-Aloud Study to Understand How Recall and Timing of Assessment Influence Patient Responses

Author

Listed:
  • Sabina Sanghera

    (University of Bristol)

  • Axel Walther

    (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust)

  • Tim J. Peters

    (University of Bristol)

  • Joanna Coast

    (University of Bristol)

Abstract

Background It can be challenging to measure quality of life to calculate quality-adjusted life-years in recurrent fluctuating health states, as quality of life can constantly change. It is not clear how patients who experience fluctuations complete measures and how assessment timing and recall influence responses. Objective We aimed to understand how patients with fluctuating health complete widely recommended and commonly used measures (EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-12) and the extent to which the recall period (‘health today’, ‘past week’ and ‘past 4 weeks’) and timing of assessment influence the way that patients complete these questionnaires. Methods Twenty-four adult patients undergoing chemotherapy for urological, gynaecological or bowel cancers in the UK participated in think-aloud interviews, while completing the measures, completed a pictorial task illustrating how quality of life changed during the chemotherapy cycle and took part in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison. Results Patients were consistent in describing their quality of life as changing considerably throughout a chemotherapy cycle. The shorter recall period of ‘health today’ does not adequately represent patients’ quality of life because of fluctuations, patients remarked they could give a different answer depending on the timing of assessment, and many struggled to combine the “ups and downs” to answer measures with longer recall (‘past week’ and ‘past 4 weeks’). Across all measures, patients attempted to provide averages, adopt the peak-end rule or focus on the best part of their experience. Patients commonly used more than one approach when completing a given questionnaire as well as across questionnaires. Conclusions Patients who experience recurrent fluctuations in health are unable to provide meaningful responses about their quality of life when completing quality-of-life measures due to the recall period and timing of assessment. The use of such responses to calculate health state values in economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions in fluctuating conditions must be questioned.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabina Sanghera & Axel Walther & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2022. "Challenges in Using Recommended Quality of Life Measures to Assess Fluctuating Health: A Think-Aloud Study to Understand How Recall and Timing of Assessment Influence Patient Responses," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 445-457, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00555-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00555-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00555-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00555-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00555-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.